Art education and science
scientific magazine
RUSSIAN STATE
SPECIALIZED ACADEMY
OF ARTS
Archive of magazines
Magazines №3(24) (2020)
Magazines №2(23) (2020)
Magazines №1(22) (2020)
Magazines №4(21) (2019)
Magazines №3(20) (2019)
Magazines №2(19) (2019)

Reviewing

  1. All submitted materials are filed by Secretary with the submission date. Editor-in-Chief makes a decision to accept a manuscript (with publication timeline), to reject it or send it back to the author for rework, and informs the author not later than 60 days after the manuscript submission.
  2. All submitted materials undergo preliminary evaluation conducted by Vice-Editor-in-Chief for their compliance with the publication requirements (the journal’s policy, ethics, research topics, research paper format, contact information, etc.).
  3. All pre-checked materials shall be double-blind peer-reviewed. Such reviewing is defined as an expert evaluation of a manuscript carried out not less than by two referees who have competence and expertise in the subject areas, and hold PhD or doctoral degrees granted by the recognized Russian educational institutions or the similar titles granted by the international ones.

It is the Editor-in-Chief who decides whether an article should be directed on repeated or extra reviewing by the same or other referees, particularly, if the author repeatedly presents it after rework.

  1. Peer reviewer can be anyone, including editorial board members and editors, providing there is no conflict of interests, such as status subordination, science tutoring, co-authorship, etc.
  2. In accordance with results of peer reviewing the authors are sent a letter containing a consolidated list of the revisions they will need to make in order to have their manuscript accepted for publication.
  3. The peer review evaluation results are considered in the framework of the following categories:
  • Accept with no changes;
  • Minor revision (the paper needs inconsiderable revisions at the discretion of the author);
  • Reasonable revision (the paper needs revisions with the reviewer’s comments which must be taken into account);
  • Major revision (with a repeated peer review after substantial reworking);
  • Reject (with no repeated peer reviewing).

The editorial decision-making criteria are defined by the journal.

  1. The peer review shall present substantiated answers to several questions written in a structured review form, which besides express questionnaire, includes a detailed well-argued feedback on the author’s manuscript.
  2. The journal’s editorial policy ensures that any submitted manuscript received by a reviewer is a confidential document, any use or reference to it being not available before it gets published.
  3. A positive reviewer critique is not necessarily a sufficient ground to publish the paper.
  4. The editor send to authors review copies or a motivated rejection letter, as well as review copies on request (in case of Editor-in-Chief makes a positive decision).

At the final stage of the reviewing the chief editor evaluates the article for publication.